Talk:Gender role

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2022 and 13 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Avil.M18 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Berenice Mondragon.

Removing "sex" from lead

See discussion at Talk:Gender#Gender role article dicussion regarding recent edits. [1] Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Concur. Mathglot (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

The source recently added [2] by Crossroads as support for the use of the sex article appears to be contradicted by the source. This use of the source does not appear to account for what the source states in context and how it provides support for the use of gender instead of sex.

This source helps show how the use of the term "sex" by a source should not automatically be assumed to support a link to the sex article in the way that this article currently links to it. The current sources and the OED source I attempted to add to this article seem to add further support for the use of the gender article. This also relates to the "problems of terminology" further discussed at the discussion noted above. Beccaynr (talk) 00:28, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

The source I added literally says "sex" and is very much aware of the difference between sex and gender, discussing that exact matter. Right after that it states, Gender roles, therefore, are the expected attitudes and behaviors a society associates with each sex. It could not possibly be any more specific. Defining gender roles in terms of gender is circular and meaningless. You appear to be reading WP:Original research into that source. As for the OED, I have no idea what this supposed to prove; it does not support your definition and its many-decades-old quotes clearly carry less weight than much newer sources in any case. As for the pre-existing sources, one of them defines it as The social roles, behaviors, attitudes, and psychological characteristics that are more common, more expected, or more accepted for one sex or the other. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

At page 4 of the source, it states, "Gender can be viewed on a continuum of characteristics demonstrated by a person regardless of the person's biological sex." At page 5: "When the sociological concept of role is combined with the biological concept of sex, there is often misunderstanding about what content areas are subsumed under the resultant sex role label. Usage has become standardized, however, and most sociologists now employ gender role rather than sex role in their writing."

The OED also appears to make a distinction in its example of usages of "gender role", which includes "...even if it runs counter to the physical sex of the subject."

One of the sources currently used in the gender role article after the line in the lead with the link to sex defines gender role as "patterns of behavior, attitudes, and personality attributes that are traditionally considered in a particular culture to be feminine or masculine." The other source for that sentence provides a capsule definition without accessible context to support the link to the sex article, particularly in the context of other sources and especially the contents of the gender role article.

I also think it is important to assess the article as a whole and how the article itself does not support linking to a general article about biology for an article about this sociological concept.

It also does not appear to be circular to explain gender role with reference to gender, because gender roles are a part of gender. It also seems to be an unrepresentative reflection of the sources and the article as well as potentially confusing to send readers to a biology article, contrary to how sources are discussing gender and gender roles. Beccaynr (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

The page 4 quote is about individual persons, not the concept as a whole. The page 5 quote is about the term "sex role", which is a separate matter. None of this negates the source's clear explicit statements. The OED quote demonstrating usage is from 1963 and is obviously outdated, claiming that "gender role" is "learned by the age of two years [and] is for most individuals almost irreversible". This tells us nothing about modern usage; see WP:RS AGE.

That other source in the lead is just one among several and does not contradict that such constructs are based ultimately on roles/attributes intended for particular sexes. Humans are both biological and social beings and as such, it is not surprising that social roles were built on top of pre-existing biological differences rather than arbitrarily.

Circularity is still an issue because you opposed mentioning sex in defining gender as well, which currently relies on gender roles in its definition. NPOV has to do with RS, and they very clearly do define it this way. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:04, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I do not think it is particularly helpful for us to have essentially the same discussion at two articles. Nevertheless, the book is about the concept, and "gender" is discussed as a concept by the book, including at pp. 4-5, and I have highlighted that section because it speaks to the terminology confusion that can exist and appears to exist when the lead doesn't reflect the body of an article. In both gender role and woman, there appear to be similar WP:NPOV issues related to the use of the sex-related articles that do not appear supported by the contents of the article and sources, contrary to MOS:LEAD.

And if you are going to represent things I have previously said, as always, please cite a diff so I can directly respond. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 02:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Crossroads, re: your removal of sources supporting the clarification to the lead [3] - I would appreciate it if you would restore this - I did attempt to clarify the preponderance of sources with the addition of sources and content about why 'gender roles' refers to 'gender' and not the wikilinked sex article, e.g. [4]. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

This bit about "gender role" vs. "sex role" doesn't tell us how to define the topic. The existing sources support "sex"; adding a source that supports "gender" isn't enough to replace the former with the latter. It needs to be based on the due weight of the body of sources. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

This is a sociological/sociocultural concept, and the sociological source speaks to the 'confusion' in the terminology - and it seems apparent, including based on the other sources I added from the WHO and the book that was removed, that the wikilinked sex article is not supported. Basically, just because the word 'sex' may be used by a source, it does not translate into clear support for the sex wikilink. We have discussed these concepts and sources for awhile across various articles, including Gender, and the recent consensus update to Gender seems to help further clarify how this is the most apprpriate article to link to. And as background to how this change happened - I had seen a change made to the lead, reverted, and then went ahead with adding sources to help support a clarification; my hope now is that after the extensive discussions, the sources I attempted to add, the clarifying text added to this article, and the revision to the lead of the gender article, that the link to gender is more clearly supported. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 02:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Your edit is not a clarification; it's an NPOV violation. The WHO source doesn't even mention gender roles. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The WHO source refers to roles in its discussion of gender. And I am concerned that not accounting for sources explain how this sociological concept is understood to be related to gender, not sex, is an WP:NPOV problem - that is what I am trying to address. Beccaynr (talk) 03:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

This 'sex doesn't mean sex' argument IIRC was made above and did not gain consensus. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I added the sources and adjusted the article to make the terminology more clear, and I think the article should reflect this, with the RS I added restored. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 03:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• You've repeatedly referred to previous discussions; can you link to them? I searched extensively and could find no discussion of Lindsey at all. While it is possible I may have missed something, I do not believe there is an affirmative consensus for "sex" in the sentence in question, and am asking that you avoid asserting so until / unless you can point to the specific discussion where that consensus was reached in order to avoid inadvertently misrepresenting the current consensus. Certainly it looks, to me, to be weakly-sourced (a single source whose use in this context has clear issues I detail below), so I'm skeptical that it could have obtained a strong consensus. --Aquillion (talk) 05:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• I don't think Lindsey is a good source for this. The key point here is that Lindsey is specifically not using sex in the way it is frequently used today (ie. sex assigned at birth), saying:

Extended quote; emphasis mine

This relatively simple distinction masks a number of problems associated with its usage. It implies that all people can be conveniently placed into unambiguous either-or categories. Certainly the ascribed status of sex is less likely to be altered than the achieved status of gender. Some people believe, however, that they were born with the "wrong" body and are willing to undergo major surgery to make their gender identity consistent with their biological sex. ... These issues will be addressed fully in Chapters 2 and 3, but are mentioned here to highlight the problems of terminology. From a sociological perspective, this text is concerned with gender and how it is learned, how it changes over time, and how it varies between and within cultures. Gender can be viewed on a continuum of characteristics demonstrated by a person regardless of the person's biological sex. Adding the concept of role to either sex or gender may increase confusion in terminology. When the sociological concept of role is combined with the biological concept of sex, there is often misunderstanding about what content areas are subsumed under the resultant sex role label. Usage has become standardized, however, and most sociologists now employ gender role rather than sex role in their writing. Gender roles, therefore, are the expected attitudes and behaviors a society associates with each sex. This definition places gender squarely in the sociocultural context.

By my reading this means she is saying that gender roles subsume both sex and gender (and that when she says "sex", she means an attribute which she notes can be changed by surgery; in 2023, that isn't necessarily how all readers will interpret the sex / gender divide, which makes it a misuse of the source if it's used in a way that will lead readers to that misinterpretation.) This vital context is occluded in the current lead. While she uses the word "sex", yes, the larger context makes it clear she's talking about someone's presentation. And seems to me to be particularly bizarre to rely on Lindsey (who notes that the terminology is complex) to justify an excessively simplistic usage of terminology that completely ignores Lavigne (a source that was removed with no valid justification that I can see? Even if there was a prior consensus - which I see no evidence of - it would not preclude adding new sources and updating the text to reflect them.) Lavigne unambiguously says that gender roles are about gender; the thing to do when we have sources that disagree is to parse them carefully to be sure we understand what they're saying, to determine which is best and to figure out a wording that accurately reflects all of them. If there is a disagreement between them, then we need to represent it properly. (As a note, Lindsey's "usage has become standardized" aside also makes me suspect that the way she uses sex / gender terminology is not mainstream, ie. she's basically saying that everyone else should use the terms like X while bemoaning the fact that they use them like Y - which is essentially saying that her views are a minority. Minority views can still be represented, but that makes it inappropriate to rely on her to the exclusion of sources that contradict her usage.) --Aquillion (talk) 05:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

This whole multi-month discussion is kinda ridiculous. Sex is correct here and whether it's being used in the prescriptive sense à la West and Zimmerman or the common sex-gender indistinct, it doesn't really matter. It would be incumbent on Becca to show gender is the predominant term when describing sex roles/gender roles (which it's not). EvergreenFir (talk) 06:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, I have been reviewing scholarly literature related to this complex topic for months, and have linked various examples in my comment below - I have approached this topic area as a learner and with guidance from WP:NPOV policy. From my view, there appears to be a theme in scholarly sources, and today another example of how some aspects of what has classically been referred to as 'sex' seems to now be more clearly understood as 'gender' was brought to my attention by a NYT Opinion article: Ancient Judaism Recognized a Range of Genders. It’s Time We Did, Too. (Elliot Kukla, Mar. 18, 2023), which led me to this: Gender and Jewish Studies.

My sense is there likely is a way to add content about the nuance in the terminology (e.g. "The terms sex roles and gender roles often are used interchangeably..." in "Sex Roles and Gender Roles" Encyclopedia of Adolescence, 2014, Roger J. R. Levesque, pp 2622–2623); e.g. "Gender Identity and Sex Roles" Handbook of Social Development, 1992, Marion O’Brien, p. 325 "A gender role or sex role is a set of attitudes and a behavioral repertoire associated by cultural convention with being male or female. Here the categories become blurred. ..."; e.g. a 1983 source by Anne R. Edwards: "Sex Roles: a Problem for Sociology and for Women" Journal of Sociology, 19(3) fn1: "A distinction between sex (biology) and gender (culture) has become widely accepted as a useful analytical one. Roles may therefore be based on sex or gender and women's roles described accordingly as 'female' or 'feminine' respectively. However, many writers on 'sex roles' ignore this categorisation and persist in using 'sex' to denote the social roles of men and women even where such roles are unmistakeably gender-based."; e.g. Gender Roles and Society Amy M. Blackstone, 2003, Human Ecology: An Encyclopedia of Children, Families, Communities, and Environments, edited by Julia R. Miller, Richard M. Lerner, and Lawrence B. Schiamberg. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. ISBN I-57607-852-3, p. 335: "Understanding the term "gender roles" requires an understanding of the term "gender." "Gender" is a social term that is often confused with the term "sex" [...]. Gender [...] refers to the meanings, values, and characteristics that people ascribe to different sexes") but as I note below, my capacity to continue engaging in the type of discussion that has occurred across multiple related articles (and AfDs, e.g. 1, 2) is limited for the foreseeable future.

I have tried to discuss sources in detail, and encouraged in-depth review - these are contentious terms, so it seems helpful to focus on academic sources and to be wary of a superficial use of the terminology, in part because of where the term 'sex' links on Wikipedia - without (from my view) apparent substantial support in sources that also use the term. As a potentially-related note, an attempt to add a distinction in the sex article, e.g. [5] was reverted by Crossroads [6], the female article has a clarification about human gender, and there is somewhat-related discussion on that article's Talk page. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• I apologize for not being clear about the previous discussions and research I was referring to. These discussions include the extensive discussion on Talk:Gender, including the research in the Talk:Gender#Broad concept article approach section, as well as the consensus developed to adjust the first sentence of the lead at Talk:Gender#Yet another, another suggestion. There has also been discussion at Talk:Woman#WP:NPOV and MOS:LEAD that seems relevant, and somewhat relatedly Draft talk:Female (gender)/Archive 2#Nature of this page. From my view, the academic literature seems to make the use of the wikilinked sex article problematic, and makes the use of gender a more clear choice with regard to the concept that gender roles references. Based on the research I have conducted, my concern is about readers being pointed to the sex article, when the sociological literature does not appear to support this - those with a background in sociology can grok how the terminology can be used interchangeably to signify what we refer to as gender, but we are not writing for experts.

Also, another source removed by Crossroads is Worthy, L D; Lavigne, T; Romero, F (July 27, 2020). "Stereotypes and Gender Roles". Culture and Psychology. MMOER. Retrieved 6 March 2023. Gender roles refer to the role or behaviors learned by a person as appropriate to their gender and are determined by the dominant cultural norms.. In any event, I am mostly on wikibreak for a bit due to health issues, so I am not going to have much energy or focus for the type of discussions that have previously happened at Talk:Gender, Talk:Woman, or Draft talk:Female (gender). All I can really do for now is offer my research from the past months in this complex topic area. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 14:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The sources state that gender roles are defined based on expectations related to sex. I cited these in this discussion: [7] Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

The opening paragraph says that gender roles are a cultural thing. This can be understood that they have nothing to do with a biological difference. However later in the article it stated that the difference is also biological however not in the assumed extent. So it seems like the opening definition is not an accurate description of what this is Rashba (talk) 09:25, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Culture

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2023 and 18 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jenjmo, Misshelene97 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Jeyoungx (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: University Writing 1020 Communicating Feminism MW 1 pm

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2024 and 15 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Laeismann, Adakirkland, Oliviawamble (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Zparsons1, Lauren.r.11, Sarahgouldrup.

— Assignment last updated by Cjsmith7 (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Gender role is one thing, discrimination against women is another

A lot of the recent content (almost entirely unsourced) added recently (mostly here) is not pertinent to the topic of this article. It would be fine in an article about misogyny or discrimination against women, or gender inequality, and perhaps other articles, but gender role is about something else, and adding information about how relatively few actresses are hired or represented with speaking roles is not relevant to what the gender roles are. Is there a confusion about the different meanings of "film role" and "gender role perhaps? Beccaynr has been doing a valiant effort to try and rescue this, but I just don't think it's living in the right article. A lot of the content looks promising, and if cited would well deserve a place somewhere, but I don't believe this is the right place for it. Unless someone can make an argument for keeping it here, as opposed to elsewhere, I plan to remove it at some point. Adding Oliviawamble. Brianda (Wiki Ed), could you review sourcing with this editor? They did add one source later, but that isn't close to adequate, whether the content remains here, or moves elswehwere. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

There had been an existing subsection for Media that was in the midst of a subsection for Studies on marriage in the U.S., that did not really seem to directly relate to marriage, and when it began to be further expanded, this made it clear it all needed to move, so I created a new main section. I have added templates to various new subsections with the hope editors could receive this as constructive feedback, consult their instructor and WikiEd support, and have some time to develop the content. Mathglot, I think your comments about how the new content relates to the article topic are helpful, and I think this could be an opportunity for editors to consider how to further develop the content either in this article or elsewhere. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 01:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

As a follow up comment, and pinging editors who have recently contributed content: Laeismann, Adakirkland, Calliehoffman, and Oliviawamble, as well as Brianda (Wiki Ed); on Google Scholar, searches for gender roles and social media, gender roles and film, and gender roles and television may offer useful sources to help develop content in this article. Beccaynr (talk) 18:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Mathglot and @Beccaynr for your helpful commentary and links. I've reached out to the students and asked them to participate in this discussion and to address the unsourced work asap. Hope they make it out here, but if they don't, they're aware that unsourced work can/will be reverted. Brianda (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Extending Beccaynr's sourcing link idea with these "find sources" links:

Find sources for "Gender role" and ...

• ...social media – Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• ...film – Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• ...television – Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Moved two sections from the article to this section for further work, or to be picked up and moved to a more relevant article if desired:

Sections 'Gender Inequality in Television' and 'Gender Inequality in film' from the article

Gender Inequality in Television Women’s roles in television tend to be focused on their relationships with men rather than their own personal goals. Many examples of this are prevalent in teen drama shows (E.g. The Vampire Diaries, Gilmore Girls, One Tree Hill). These shows tend to revolve around an everlasting love triangle that throughout the run of the show destroys relationships that the female character has with others. It also paints the image that women in television are only seen as sex objects which shines a negative light on women in real life Many female characters' personalities seem to revolve around their love life rather than any true, redeeming qualities they may have (ncbi.gov, Sex Roles). Their appearance also is seen as their “best trait” in many cases. When casting, casting directors tend to look for certain traits when casting female leads for shows. This includes being thin, pretty, tall, etc. These qualities are looked at more compared to others because these are the believed qualities that will attract viewers to continue watching the show (Susan D. Witt, lewisu.edu). These qualities are compared to those of men that include being strong, smart, ambitious, etc. Remarks made towards them throughout the show, and while at award shows/premieres, emphasizes that this is something that people want in order to make their show more appealing. Dr. Martha Lauzen, an executive director at San Diego State University, wrote a report that found that when women are producing or directing shows more women get hired (Corinne Segal, PBS). The number of women working in the television industry is already low, women television directors making up only 12%, which means the amount of women being hired is also much lower. Additional research found that streaming services have a higher percentage of women actors compared to broadcast television (Elizabeth Blair, NPR). Women's speaking roles on streaming services make up 47% while on broadcast television it makes up 45%. This is the same with main character roles for women which make up 50% on streaming services and only 48% on broadcast television. With appearances being a very prevalent part of television, actresses' appearances changing is showcased to the world no matter how big or small. Women tend to be bashed online when something has changed in their appearance. Many women who begin acting as children, and continue acting into adulthood, get bullied by magazines or tabloids over natural appearance changes that they can’t help. An example of this is Sasha Pieterse from Pretty Little Liars. She was heavily criticized online for gaining weight throughout the course of the show. She spoke about how these comments negatively affected her but she continued to get hate. Ageism is something else that many women experience as they are in the spotlight over time. Brooke Shields is quoted saying, “It's like you go from sexy to Depends,” (All Things Considered, NPR). Gender Roles in Film Studies have shown that the portrayal of women in films differs from that of men in film. Theorists, such as Laura Mulvey, Judith Mayne, Noël Carroll, and others all discuss how the roles of women within films tend to fit a certain misogynistic and stereotypical purpose, which tends to be to fit the male gaze, over-sexualize women, or further the classical gender roles placed on women. These ideas can be seen within some of the most well-known films, such as the Twilight Saga, the Transformers series, Wolf of Wall Street, and many of the original Disney Princess Films. Within Keisha Hoerrner’s article about gender roles in Disney films, Hoerrner explores the ways in which women characters all throughout the Disney film franchise are portrayed, and how these misogynistic stereotypes could be affecting the perspectives of the young minds who are consuming these films. Hoerrner compares the differences between how heroes and heroines are displayed throughout several Disney films, describing how the heroines tend to be more dependent on male assistance or validation to be successful in their goals, while male heroes are shown in a more self-sufficient and brave light. San Diego State University conducted a study and found that the percentage of women speaking roles within films declined from 37% in 2022 to 35% in 2023, and the number of female characters in major roles remained at 38%. SDSU also found that the percentage of films with female protagonists contracted from 33% in 2022 to 28% in 2023. Many theorists have used the Bechdel Test as a scale of how “feminist” a film is. It has been found that some of the most famous and popular films that are consumed by the general public do not pass the Bechdel Test, and most feminist theorists argue the consumption of films that do not pass the test negatively contributes to the continuation of unfair gender roles. Some films that have been reported not to pass the Bechdel test are The Avengers, The Lord of the Rings, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, The Lion King, Star Wars original trilogy, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Casablanca, and Finding Nemo. References

If nothing happens with this in a couple of weeks, I will remove the collapsed content. It's still available in article history (or here), of course. Brianda, not sure if you want to ping any of the student editors on this. Mathglot (talk) 08:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Sending smoke signals to @Laeismann, @Adakirkland, @Calliehoffman, @Oliviawamble. The editors on this discussion have provided helpful links to find reliable sources and created this collapsed section to improve the content. I encourage you to fix the issues so that the content can continue to be on Wikipedia Brianda (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)